MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470564009 · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2016.06.007

A building extraction approach for Airborne Laser Scanner data utilizing the Object Based Image Analysis paradigm

2016· article· en· W2470564009 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Ivan Tomljenović, Dirk Tiede, Thomas Blaschke

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustrian Science FundYork University
KeywordsPoint cloudRaster graphicsLaser scanningRemote sensingComputer scienceDigital elevation modelThematic mapData setLidarGeographyArtificial intelligenceComputer visionCartographyLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past two decades Object-Based Image Analysis (OBIA) established itself as an efficient approach for the classification and extraction of information from remote sensing imagery and, increasingly, from non-image based sources such as Airborne Laser Scanner (ALS) point clouds. ALS data is represented in the form of a point cloud with recorded multiple returns and intensities. In our work, we combined OBIA with ALS point cloud data in order to identify and extract buildings as 2D polygons representing roof outlines in a top down mapping approach. We performed rasterization of the ALS data into a height raster for the purpose of the generation of a Digital Surface Model (DSM) and a derived Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Further objects were generated in conjunction with point statistics from the linked point cloud. With the use of class modelling methods, we generated the final target class of objects representing buildings. The approach was developed for a test area in Biberach an der Riß (Germany). In order to point out the possibilities of the adaptation-free transferability to another data set, the algorithm has been applied “as is” to the ISPRS Benchmarking data set of Toronto (Canada). The obtained results show high accuracies for the initial study area (thematic accuracies of around 98%, geometric accuracy of above 80%). The very high performance within the ISPRS Benchmark without any modification of the algorithm and without any adaptation of parameters is particularly noteworthy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and GeoinformationSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207